X-Message-Number: 6548
Date: 17 Jul 96 00:13:12 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: Prometheus Concerns
This is in reply to Ken Stone's Cryonet message #6527.
Although I don't have much sympathy *for* some of Ken's concerns, I do
sincerely want to thank him for his *forthright answer* to my question about
why he has not pledged. I may be putting other readers of Cryonet which I
*know* have the funds, but have not yet said *anything*, "on the spot" in
this way from time to time and I hope that *they* will live up to Ken's
standard of frankness.
Ken wrote:
1) I don't how likely it is that Prometheus will succeed. No one
really does. If it was obvious that it would work, the decision
to make this kind of a sacrifice would be a lot easier.
You're certainly in the majority here, Ken. I don't think that there is
*anyone* inside or outside the pledger group, who wouldn't agree with this
statement. I, and the pledgers simply believe that the time is now auspicious
to try a really concerted effort to *thrust* cryonics forward. We believe
that the size of the life-extension movement, in general, has increased
sufficiently to support a scientific effort for which the scientific method
has also now matured sufficiently, and we ask others to join us. That is all.
Your number 2 concern is the one with which I have the least sympathy.
Frankly, I refuse even to quote it here. I will address it only in general
terms. As far as getting "ripped off" (which implies criminal activity and
not merely having your shares lose their value), you have no more chance of
getting "ripped off" by pledging and investing in the corporation which
executes the Prometheus Project than in any other corporation. Since the
pledgers and future share purchasers will have to approve the company's plans
including the scientific and executive leaders, you will have even less
chance because if you don't like them then you can withdraw your pledge.
Frankly, it really annoys me when I hear the phrase "ripped off" being used
to describe the possible results of legal, moral and ethical actions of free
market capitalism such as you are doing and which is so prevalent in the
vernacular of the day.
Moreover, your remarks about Saul Kent are completely out of place. *I*
am directing this project, not Saul. Yes, I have known Saul and worked with
him for 5 years now and consider him a good friend and a very wise man. He
has helped, and will help this project enormously with his suggestions and
ideas. But this project is as independent of him as it is of anyone. Anyone
who knows Saul *knows* that it's too big for whatever money he has, or he
would have *already* funded it. Furthermore, I totally resent your
implications concerning his character. I would stake my *life* on his
integrity and fairness. And I *know* that his Life Extension Foundation has
helped thousands of people, me included, to live healthier, happier, and more
productive lives.
The first part of Ken's #3 concern was about the incentives which were
being offered to cryonics companies. Since this has now all been changed, I
will comment no further.
Then Ken wrote:
> I don't buy the idea that individual investors will be compensated
> eventually-- once everybody else in the world sees the technology
> work. What if it doesn't quite work, but the information gleaned
> is still valuable to the existing cryonics community?
You miss the point. The whole purpose of the project *is* for the technology
developed to be valuable mainly to the cryonics community. So valuable, in
fact, that is will enormously enlarge that community to include mainstream
science and medicine! How can such a result *not* make money for the
investors? The only legitimate question is whether the project *will* produce
such a result.
>And how long would any patents last, anyway?
It is my understanding that they last for 17 years.
>What's wrong with simply rewarding everybody in proportion to their stock
> holdings???
We were always doing that. Now we're doing it more so.
> Can't you trust the market?
This is a real strange one, for your comments suggest to me that *you* are
the one who neither understands nor trusts the free market.
I should not be forgotten that the free market of bio-tech venture capital
investments has not and will not produce the Prometheus Project because it
only operates on *monetary* return on monetary investment. But there are many
values in life which are not commensurable with money, most notably *life*
itself. In my view it has always been a weakness of capitalism that it does
not take these very valuable "intangibles" into account. The Prometheus
Project is based on the value of life. Because of this there will necessarily
be some deviations from a totally free market capitalist approach. The only
alternative, I believe, would be to wait several decades - well after many of
us are dead - for its goal to be accomplished.
> If you can't reward your best researchers with stock or options
> that will be worth something when they succeed, why do you expect
> they will want to stick with Prometheus if they see the light at the
> other end of the tunnel?
The scientific leaders *will* be rewarded with stock options which *will* be
worth a lot if they succeed.
> How do you expect to ever attract any 'outsider' venture capital
> when your product(s) won't necessarily have a market who will BUY them?
> I suspect that even with major contributions by both Alcor and
> CryoCare, you will *still* need to attract a few million dollars
> worth of VC.
The company certainly won't be trying *not* to develop valuable technology
along its road to the project goal. If developing the value of some
technology off-shoot will help us reach that goal faster we will certainly do
so. Otherwise, the company will "spin" it off to be developed elsewhere. As I
have stated before the purpose of the Prometheus Project is *life* not money.
Only to the extent that money is an adjunct to life and promotes it, will we
go after money. I do not expect initially to attract *any* venture capital
and I don't believe that I will need it. If this project was attractive to
VC, it wouldn't have needed me to start it. Although it is quite possible
that once we get over the $500K per year level, some VC may be forthcoming.
And I don't expect either CryoCare or Alcor to make major contributions
(certainly not in the sense of more than 10%).
> Is it *ethical* to lure big money from Alcor/CryoCare/CI/ACS or
> anybody else with plans that implicitly ignore the contributions
> made by individuals?
Ken, you have very strange views indeed of ethics and morality. If something
is freely accepted by all the individuals involved, how on earth can it be
unethical?
>In summary, if I have to worry too much about getting ripped off, I'd
>rather just take my few marbles and go invest in my future through a
>respectable biotech mutual fund.
Then please Ken, make my life easier and go do so.
-- Paul --
!!!!! REVERSIBLE BRAIN CRYOPRESERVATION *CAN* BE ACHIEVED IN 10 YEARS !!!!!
Paul Wakfer email: Voice/Fax: Pager:
US: 1220 E Washington St #24, Colton, CA 92324 909-481-4433 800-805-2870
Canada: 238 Davenport Rd #240, Toronto, ON M5R 1J6 416-968-6291 416-446-9461
(currently in Canada)
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6548